CFLRP Annual Report 2012
CFLR Project (Name/Number): Lower Kootenai River Watershed
National Forest(s): Idaho Panhandle NFs
Responses to the prompts on this annual report should be typed directly into this template, including narratives and
tables:
1. Match and Leverage funds:
a. FY12 Matching Funds Documentation
Fund Source
CFLR Funds Expended 1
Carryover funds expended 2 (please include a new row for each BLI)
FS Matching Funds
(please include a new row for each BLI) 3
Funds contributed through agreements 4
Partner In-Kind Contributions 5
Service work accomplishment through goods-for services funding
within a stewardship contract 6
Total Funds Expended in Fiscal Year 2012($)
$174,911
0
CMRD: $51,286
NFRR: $95,895
RTRT: $16,422
SSCC: $189,198
Total: $527,712
0
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho ($50,000)
KVRI ($46,368)
Idaho Transportation Department($11,000)
State of Idaho ($12,500)
Boundary County ($29,200)
Arbor Day Foundation ($12,750)
Total: $161,818
0
b. Please provide a narrative or table describing leveraged funds in your landscape in FY2012 (one page maximum)
Not Applicable.
1
This amount should match the amount of CFLR/CFLN dollars obligated in the PAS report titled CFLR Job Code Listing and
Expenditure Report – Detailed Analysis by Fiscal Year.
2
This value should reflect the amount of carryover funds allocated to a project as indicated in the program direction, but does not
necessarily need to be in the same BLIs as indicated in the program direction. These funds should total the matching funds obligated
in the PAS report tited Listing and Expenditure Report – Detailed Analysis by Fiscal Year minus the below matching funds.
3
This amount should match the amount of matching funds obligated in the PAS report titled CFLR Job Code Listing and Expenditure
Report – Detailed Analysis by Fiscal Year minus the above carryover/HPRP funds.
4
Please document any partner contributions to implementation and monitoring of the CFLR project through an agreement (this
should only include funds that weren’t already captured through the PAS job code structure for CFLR matching funds). Please list
the partner organizations involved in the agreement.
5
Total partner in-kind contributions for implementation and monitoring of a CFLR project. Please list the partner organizations that
provided in-kind contributions. See “Annual Report instructions” for instructions on how to document in-kind contributions.
6
This should be the amount in the “stewardship credits charged” column at the end of the fiscal year in the TSA report TSA90R-01.
1
CFLRP Annual Report 2012
Approved by: /s/ Mary Farnsworth
Forest Supervisor
Approved by: ____________________________
Forest Supervisor
2. Discuss how the CLFR project contributes to accomplishment of the performance measures in the 10 year
Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan 7, dated December 2006. Please comment on the cumulative
contributions over the life of the project if appropriate. This may also include a description of the fire year (fire activity
that occurred in the project area) as a backdrop to your response (please limit answer to one page).
The 2012 fire season resulted in very light activity on National Forest System lands within the lower Kootenai River project
area, as compared to previous years or compared to other forests across the west. Late snow packs and a wet spring and early
summer kept fuel moistures and fire danger indices above average through typical periods of high fire danger, and
characteristic dry lightning associated with late-July and August thunderstorms either did not materialize or were
accompanied with wetting rains. As a result, only four fires were detected, none of which occurred in areas treated under the
project, and all were successfully controlled through direct attack suppression tactics, resulting in less than one total acre
burned. For comparison, the 10-year average (2002-2011) is 20 fires per fire year.
Therefore, the contributions of the project to accomplishments of the performance measures specifically related to improved
suppression, wildfire control and reduction in unwanted human-caused ignitions in the 10-year Strategy are difficult to
measure for this first year. For example, a well-below average fire year did not allow us to effectively measure change from
10-year average for wildfires controlled during initial attack (all four were controlled during initial attack), for percent change
from 10 year average for number of unwanted human-caused fires (1 of the 4, or 25% human-caused – average is 22%), or
for percent of fires not contained in initial attack that exceeded a stratified cost index (all were contained in initial attack).
However, project activities contributed to fuels reduction and forest restoration through commercial and non-commercial
harvest and the use of planned ignitions on several hundred acres. As the project develops across the landscape we expect
opportunities to assess the aforementioned measures and an increased ability of the local fire organization to better meet the
objectives in the 10-year Strategy. This is based on the following accomplishments of the 10-year Strategy performance
measures:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Percent change from 10-year average for wildfires controlled during initial attack: see above
Percent change from 10-year average for number of unwanted human-caused wildfires: see above
Percent of fires not contained in initial attack that exceed a stratified cost index: see above
Number and percent of WUI acres treated that are identified in CWPPs: 1661 acres – 100% in the WUI. CFLR
project accomplishments included as part of this determination include commercial thin/biomass removal,
improvement harvest, regeneration harvest, pre-commercial thinning, and prescribed burning.
Number and percent of non-WUI acres treated identified through collaboration consistent with the Implementation
Plan: 0 acres – all acres treated were in the WUI
Number of acres treated per million dollars gross investment in WUI and non-WUI areas: For FY12 – $244,436 was
invested for CFLR targets specific to the commercial thin, improvement harvest, regeneration harvest, and precommercial thinning and prescribed burning for 1661 acres treated in the WUI.).
Percent of collaboratively identified high priority acres treated where fire management objectives are achieved as
identified in applicable management plans or strategies: 100% of acres treated were in collaboratively identified
high priority areas as displayed in Attachment G to the lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLR proposal.
7
The 10-year Comprehensive Strategy was developed in response to the Conference Report for the Fiscal Year 2001, Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-291).
2
CFLRP Annual Report 2012
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Applicable fire management objectives include using planned ignitions to meet the goals of the management areas,
providing for more efficient fire protection (initial attack strategies specific to management area objectives) through
reduced natural and activity fuels in the event of a future wildfire, and protection of human life and property by
moderating expected future fire behavior through fuels reduction.
Number and percent of acres treated by prescribed fire, through collaboration consistent with the Implementation
Plan: 116 acres treated with prescribed fire – 100% of acres burned identified through collaboration consistent with
the plan.
Number and percent of acres treated by mechanical thinning, through collaboration consistent with the
Implementation Plan: 1545 acres of mechanical thinning (includes commercial harvest and pre-commercial
thinning) identified through collaboration consistent with the plan – 100% identified through collaboration
consistent with the plan.
Number of acres and percent of the natural ignitions that are allowed to burn under strategies that result in desired
conditions: 0 natural ignitions allowed to burn
Number and percent of acres treated to restore fire-adapted ecosystems which are moved toward desired conditions:
Of the 1661 total acres treated, 1307 acres of timber harvest associated with the Meadow Creek and East Fork
Meadow Creek Timber Sales 8 moved toward a natural fire regime condition class as part of the desired conditions
outlined in the Environmental Assessment. Additionally, 116 acres moved toward desired conditions of reduced fuel
loadings through burning 9 in Borderline Stew treatment area. Total of 86% of the total treated acres moved toward
desired conditions.
Number and percent of acres treated to restore fire-adapted ecosystems which are maintained in desired conditions:
238 acres of pre-commercial thinning to maintain desired conditions in W. Mission Gillion, E. Fork Boulder, Italian
Peak treatment areas 10 by favoring long-lived seral species, reducing wildfire hazard in the long-term and
increasing the health and vigor of the residual stand in the long term by reducing stocking levels. This is considered
maintenance of desired conditions as outlined in the long-term silvicultural objectives of the regeneration harvests
which established these plantations. Total of 14% of the total treated acres maintained in desired conditions.
Number and percent of burned acres identified in approved post-wildfire recovery plans as needing treatments that
actually received treatments: None – NA
Percent of burned acres treated for post-wildfire recovery that are trending towards desired conditions: None – NA
2. What assumptions were used in generating the numbers and/or percentages you plugged into the TREAT tool?
FY 2012 Jobs Created/Maintained (FY12 CFLR/CFLN/HPRP/Carryover funding only):
Type of projects
Direct part
Total part and
Direct Labor
and fullfull-time jobs
Income
time jobs
Commercial Forest Product Activities 0
0
0
Other Project Activities
3.5
4.9
$97,899
TOTALS:
10.8
12.6
$141,713
Total Labor
Income11
0
$142,335
$196,374
FY 2012 Jobs Created/Maintained (FY12 CFLR/CFLN/HPRP/Carryover and matching funding):
8
Desired conditions as outlined in the East Fork of Meadow Creek EA
Desired conditions as outlined in the Mission Brush Supplemental Final EIS, pages 1-9 through 1-11
10
Purpose and Need for pre-commercial thinning taken from the NZ Juvenile Tree Thinning Decision Memo, 2010
11
Values obtained from Treatment for Restoration Economic Analysis Tool (TREAT) spreadsheet, “Impacts-Jobs and Income” tab.
Spreadsheet and directions available at http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLR/submittingproposals.shtml#tools.
9
3
CFLRP Annual Report 2012
Type of projects
Commercial Forest Product Activities
Other Project Activities
TOTALS:
Direct part
and fulltime jobs
52.6
11.8
82.7
Total part and
full-time jobs
122.2
15.7
156.6
Direct Labor
Income
$2,998,325
$311,783
$3,354,748
Total Labor
Income12
$5,526,266
$434,922
$6,016,247
4. Describe other community benefits achieved and the methods used to gather information about these benefits
(Please limit answer to two pages).
In addition to job creation and income for local communities, the first year of implementing the Lower Kootenai Watershed
CFLRP has also resulted in improved understanding of local resource issues among the community and real improvements to
the community’s watershed. Numerous public meetings have been conducted within the project area to explain both the need
for restoration and the specifics of proposed projects. Field trips for the first major CFLR project in the area, the Twenty Mile
Creek Restoration Project, were conducted to provide educational opportunities and greater understanding of the project’s
benefits.
Additionally, real improvements to the community watershed were implemented in the East Fork Meadow Creek area. Work
included road decommissioning, noxious weeds treatments, silvicultural treatments and the installation of aquatic organism
passages. As a whole these treatments will result in improved water quality for the local community in the future. However,
the immediate benefit to communities from these treatments lies in the jobs created in contracting the work and the additional
income provided to the community through this work.
These community benefits are just the tip of the iceberg as the Lower Kootenai Watershed CFLRP wraps up its first year of
implementation. In future years communities can expect both more jobs and income from a greater number of projects being
implemented as well as more widespread and varied watershed improvements.
5. Describe the multiparty monitoring, evaluation, and accountability process (please limit answer to two pages).
Title IV of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (the Act), which authorized the Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) requires that a “multiparty monitoring, evaluation, and accountability process” be
used to “assess the positive or negative ecological, social and economic effects of projects…for not less than 15 years after
project implementation commences” (Sec. 4003 (g)(4)). The requirements for the CFLRP include a diverse and balanced
group of stakeholders as well as appropriate Federal, Tribal, State, County, and Municipal government representatives in the
design, implementation, and monitoring of the project. They also include a multiparty assessment to identify existing
condition and desired future condition; and report on the positive or negative impact and effectiveness of the project
including improvements in local management skills and on the ground results. The monitoring must include social,
economic, and ecological factors.
Multiparty Meetings
12
Values obtained from Treatment for Restoration Economic Analysis Tool (TREAT) spreadsheet, “Impacts-Jobs and Income” tab.
Spreadsheet and directions available at http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLR/submittingproposals.shtml#tools.
4
CFLRP Annual Report 2012
Multiparty meetings to develop the monitoring plan were held on April 24, 2012 (overview of multiparty monitoring), May
5, 2012 (discussions of social and economic monitoring, initial discussion of ecological monitoring), and June 11, 2012
(completed discussion of ecological monitoring). People at the meetings included representatives from KVRI, Idaho
Conservation League, Idaho Forest Group, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Idaho Department of Lands, Idaho Department of Labor,
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, and private citizens. As an outcome of these
meetings, a draft monitoring plan was developed. The monitoring plan will be finalized this fall.
National Indicators
The Forest Service and partners developed a suite of national indicators covering the purpose of the Act to be used to report
to Congress. Of the five national indicators (Ecological, Fire Costs, Jobs/Economics, Leveraged Funds, and Collaboration),
two were integrated into the monitoring plan (Jobs/Economics and Ecological).
Local Indicators
The draft monitoring plan includes the following local indicators and the parties responsible for the monitoring.
Social Monitoring:
• Indicator: Improvement of Skills (Idaho Forest Group; IPNF)
Economic Monitoring:
• Indicator: Number and kind of jobs created (Idaho Forest Group; IPNF)
• Indicator: Income and Wages for Local Contractors and Workers (Industry representatives)
• Indicator: Diversity of Wood Products Produced (Mills)
• Indicator: Value of Wood Products Produced (Industry representatives; Mills)
Ecological Monitoring: The IPNF has the primary responsibilities for ecological monitoring because of quality control with
data collection, data entry, and database management. The desire is that over time stakeholders and other volunteers can be
trained and participate in the ecological monitoring.
• Vegetation Management Monitoring Elements
o Vegetation Composition
o Vegetation Structure
o Acres treated by prescribed fire
• Aquatic Restoration Monitoring Elements
o Change in miles of available habitat
o Reductions in sediment delivery from improvement in roads in Riparian Conservation Areas and unstable
landtypes
• Wildlife Habitat Restoration Monitoring Elements
o Effectiveness of road management techniques
o Vegetation as habitat components
o Changes in road density
o Changes in Bear Management Unit (BMU) standards
• Recreation Monitoring Elements
o Miles of trail treated (maintained or reconstructed)
o Miles of road maintained
o Number of bridges replaced
• Invasive Species Monitoring Elements
o Acres of weeds treated
This is the first year of project implementation so there is no monitoring data available to report.
5
CFLRP Annual Report 2012
6. FY 2012 accomplishments
Performance Measure
Acres treated annually to
sustain or restore
watershed function and
resilience
Unit of
measure
2,900.4
Acres
30.4
30.4
15.2
119
119
203
88.7
120.8
0
Acres
Acre
Manage noxious weeds
and invasive plants
Highest priority acres
treated for invasive
terrestrial and aquatic
species on NFS lands
Acres of water or soil
resources protected,
maintained or improved to
achieve desired watershed
conditions.
Acres of lake habitat
restored or enhanced
Miles of stream habitat
restored or enhanced
Acres
Acres
5.5
3
Acres
0
Miles
1.3
1.25
100*
10*
Acres
Acres of terrestrial habitat
restored or enhanced
Acres of rangeland
vegetation improved
Miles of high clearance
system roads receiving
maintenance
Miles of passenger car
system roads receiving
maintenance
Miles of road
13
Acres
Acres of forest vegetation
established
Acres of forest vegetation
improved
Total Units
Accomplished
Total
Treatment
Cost ($)
Type of Funds (CFLR, Specific FS
BLI, Partner Match) 14
26,350
26,350
12,750
35,700
35,700
21,315
9,240
12,684
CFLN
RTRT
PTNR
CFLN
NFRR
CFLN
SRS2
NFRR
Integrated
targets
CFLN
NFRR
Integrated
targets
11,000
594
CFLN
NFRR
PTNR
NFRR *Project inadvertantly not coded as
CFLN in database of record (WFRP) so it did not
show in the PAS pulled data..
Acres
41.4
4,400
NFRR
Miles
3*
6,000
CMRD * Actual miles of roads maintained but
not included in the PAS report when data was
pulled. PAS shows 0 mi.
Miles
18.7*
30,000
3,000
CFLN
CMRD * Actual miles of roads maintained but
not included in the PAS report when data was
pulled. PAS shows 0 mi.
Miles
0.6
6,000
CFLN
13
Units accomplished should match the accomplishments recorded in the Databases of Record.
Please use a new line for each BLI or type of fund used. For example, you may have three lines with the same performance
measure, but the type of funding might be two different BLIs and CFLR/CFLN.
14
6
CFLRP Annual Report 2012
Performance Measure
Unit of
measure
Total Units
Accomplished
13
1.8*
1.0*
decommissioned
Total
Treatment
Cost ($)
18,000
10,000
Type of Funds (CFLR, Specific FS
BLI, Partner Match) 14
CFLN
NFRR * Includes road storage that does not get
pulled in the PAS report to date. PAS shows 0.6
mi
Miles of passenger car
system roads improved
Miles of high clearance
system road improved
Number of stream
crossings constructed or
reconstructed to provide
for aquatic organism
passage
Miles of system trail
maintained to standard
Miles of system trail
improved to standard
Miles of property line
marked/maintained to
standard
Acres of forestlands
treated using timber sales
Volume of timber sold
(CCF)
Green tons from small
diameter and low value
trees removed from NFS
lands and made available
for bio-energy production
Acres of hazardous fuels
treated outside the
wildland/urban interface
(WUI) to reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildland fire
Acres of wildland/urban
interface (WUI) high
priority hazardous fuels
treated to reduce the risk
of catastrophic wildland
fire
Number of priority acres
treated annually for
invasive species on
Federal lands
Number of priority acres
treated annually for native
Miles
0
Miles
2.5
Number
2*
140,000
CFLN
20,000
NFRR
*An additional AOP (another one on Meadow
Creek) accomplished but not included in final
PAS report “pulled” data, for a total of 2. PAS
shows 1.
Miles
0
Miles
0
Miles
0
Acres
1,307*
CCF
Green
tons
*1307 acres accomplished but not included in
the final PAS report “pulled” data.
19,321.2
2745.3
Acre
0
Acres
116.5
110
116.5
364
Acres
0
Acres
0
Integrated
targets
CFLN
WFHF
NFRR
XXXX
7
CFLRP Annual Report 2012
Performance Measure
Unit of
measure
Total Units
Accomplished
13
Total
Treatment
Cost ($)
Type of Funds (CFLR, Specific FS
BLI, Partner Match) 14
pests on Federal lands
7. FY 2012 accomplishment narrative (summarize key accomplishments and evaluate project progress) (please limit
answer to three pages).
The lower Kootenai River Watershed was chosen for a CFLRP proposal because the restoration needs were substantiated
through Tribal, Federal and State assessments. These assessments identified this area as a high priority for restoration and
provided the foundation for effective treatments that would enhance ecosystem function and resiliency. Based on this
science, the proposal’s strategy ensures balance between social and ecological needs such as watershed and ecosystem health,
wildfire use and protection, recreation and public access and economic sustainability for local communities.
In support of the goals outlined in the assessments listed above, the following treatment objectives were developed for this
landscape restoration proposal:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reduce the risk of unwanted wildland fire on the landscape.
Increase the resilience of the landscape to the effects of unwanted wildland fire in the event that such a fire occurs.
Increase the resilience of the forested landscape to insect and disease epidemics.
Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat.
Increase the number of watersheds that are in fully functional hydrologic condition.
Provide high quality outdoor recreational opportunities.
Reduce the impacts from invasive species.
Provide the opportunity for the utilization of a variety of wood products, including but not limited to lumber,
biomass and alternative energy sources.
The lower Kootenai River Watershed proposal was funded at $324,000 for 2012. Our proposal, as submitted, identified
NEPA ready projects for 2012. The Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) Forestry Subcommittee, a subset of the
parent collaborative, met on February 27, 2012 to develop a priority program of work for 2012; the Forest Service maintained
the decision space regarding the final program of work, and all treatments were subject to NEPA. The approved program
included projects that would achieve the following outcomes: prescribed burning (115 acs), invasive plant management (400
acs), culvert upgrades (3), fish passage/culvert replacement (1), road decommissioning (11.2 miles), road maintenance (30
miles), timber harvest (1307 acres, including biomass utilization), and reforestation/tsi (61 acs). In almost all cases we met or
exceeded our targets and in those that we did not, the few remaining acres or miles are included in our 2013 program of
work.
In addition to the NEPA approved project implementation targets, significant work included numerous collaborative
meetings and field trips during 2012 regarding the Twenty Mile project. The purpose and need, as identified by the
Collaborative group for Twenty Mile is to:
1) Protect the existing infrastructure of the Twenty Mile Creek drinking water association and communication site,
2) Maintain or enhance the ecological and hydrological values of the Twenty Mile Creek watershed,
3) Improve and maintain forest health in the ecosystem composition, structure, and diversity of the landscape by
providing for tree species and stocking levels similar to historic levels which will better resist insects, diseases and
wildfire and
8
CFLRP Annual Report 2012
4) Maximize opportunities to utilize forest products and provide economic opportunity through restoration work.
In October of this year KVRI supported the Forest Service moving forward with a decision that will allow implementation of
the many components of the project in 2013. Working in collaboration with KVRI the District also conducted field work on
two other major vegetation projects and one ecosystem burn project.
8. Describe the total acres treated in the course of the CFLR project (cumulative footprint acres; not a cumulative total
of performance accomplishments). What was the total number of acres treated? 15
Fiscal Year
FY12
FY10, FY11, and FY12
Total number of acres treated (treatment footprint)
2,301
2,301
9. In no more than two pages (large landscapes or very active fire seasons may need more space), describe other
relevant fire management activities within the project area (hazardous fuel treatments are already documented in
Question #6):
The lower Kootenai River project area falls within the Bonner’s Ferry District. The district had a preparedness budget of
$350,000. The project area is roughly equal to the district boundary, so the district’s preparedness costs can all be ascribed
to the project. This includes all salaries, training, and resource costs that are involved with running the Bonner’s Ferry
District preparedness program. Some of these preparedness staff were utilized in planning for and implementing project
landscape treatments.
We had limited suppression costs in the Bonner’s Ferry District. The 2012 fire season resulted in a record low number of
starts and acres for the Bonner’s Ferry District. There were four fires totaling one acre within the project area and district.
Suppression costs totaled less than $100,000. All fires were contained at initial attack and there was no BAER funds
requested for any of the fires nor were there any opportunities to claim resource benefit acres from the limited number of fires
that occurred. There were no fires managed for resource benefit. There were no fuels treatments that were burned within the
landscape that were tested.
The Bonner’s Ferry District had a WFHF budget of $208,848. This budget includes base salaries, analysis of projects,
project implementation dollars, and costs for GIS and database support. These funds can all be ascribed to the lower
Kootenai River project area. These funds in addition to NFRR and BD funds were utilized to plan and/or implement
treatments associated with the project area.
10. Describe any reasons that the FY 2012 annual report does not reflect your project proposal, previously reported
planned accomplishments, or work plan. Did you face any unexpected challenges this year that caused you to change
what was outlined in your proposal? (please limit answer to two pages)
•
$63,000 went to fire transfer.
15
This metric is separate from the annual performance measurement reporting as recorded in the databases of record. Please see
the instructions document for further clarification.
9
CFLRP Annual Report 2012
•
$81,000 could not be implemented in 2012 because contracts had expired and will be carried over into the 2013
program of work.
10
CFLRP Annual Report 2012
11. Planned FY 2014 Accomplishments
16
Performance Measure Code
Acres treated annually to
sustain or restore watershed
function and resilience
Acres of forest vegetation
established
Acres of forest vegetation
improved
Manage noxious weeds and
invasive plants
Highest priority acres treated
for invasive terrestrial and
aquatic species on NFS
lands
Acres of water or soil
resources protected,
maintained or improved to
achieve desired watershed
conditions.
Acres of lake habitat
restored or enhanced
Miles of stream habitat
restored or enhanced
Acres of terrestrial habitat
restored or enhanced
Acres of rangeland
vegetation improved
Miles of high clearance
system roads receiving
maintenance
Miles of passenger car
system roads receiving
maintenance
Miles of road
decommissioned
Miles of passenger car
system roads improved
Miles of high clearance
system road improved
Number of stream crossings
constructed or reconstructed
to provide for aquatic
organism passage
Miles of system trail
maintained to standard
Unit of measure
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acre
Acres
Planned
Accomplishment
Amount ($)
150 $97,750
250 $75,000
400 $42,000
Acres
Acres
Miles
Acres
Acres
Miles
Miles
Miles
12 $18,000
1 $150,000
150 $15,750
10 $20,000
25 $50,000
7.5 $75,000
Miles
Miles
Number
Miles
6 $330,000
80 $32,000
16
Please include all relevant planned accomplishments, assuming that funding specified in the CFLRP project proposal for FY 2014 is
available. Use actual planned funding if quantity is less than specified in CFLRP project work plan, and justify deviation from project
work plan in question 13 of this template.
11
CFLRP Annual Report 2012
16
Performance Measure Code
Miles of system trail
improved to standard
Miles of property line
marked/maintained to
standard
Acres of forestlands treated
using timber sales
Volume of timber sold (CCF)
Green tons from small
diameter and low value trees
removed from NFS lands
and made available for bioenergy production
Acres of hazardous fuels
treated outside the
wildland/urban interface
(WUI) to reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildland fire
Acres of wildland/urban
interface (WUI) high priority
hazardous fuels treated to
reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildland fire
Number of priority acres
treated annually for invasive
species on Federal lands
Number of priority acres
treated annually for native
pests on Federal lands
Unit of measure
Miles
Planned
Accomplishment
7 $96,000
Miles
Acres
CCF
Green tons
Acre
Acres
Amount ($)
3,100
24,000 $337,500
12,500 $250,000
190 $19,000
810 $202,500
Acres
Acres
12. Planned FY 2014 accomplishment narrative (no more than 1 page):
The lower Kootenai River Watershed proposal was funded at a total of $2,616,000 for 2014. Our proposal, as
submitted, identified projects that require NEPA. Several NEPA projects needed to accomplish FY2014 projects
are currently in the analysis process, including Hellroaring Creek, Kriest Creek, and Buckhorn Restoration Burn.
The Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) Forestry Subcommittee, a subset of the parent collaborative, met
on February 27, 2012 to review a priority program of work for FY2012, as well as to review the program of work
for FY2013 and 2014; the Forest Service maintains the decision space for all implementation, and all work is
subject to NEPA. The program for FY2014, although not reviewed by KVRI to date, includes projects that will
achieve the following outcomes: prescribed burning (250 acs), habitat improvement/fuels reduction (1000 ac),
invasive plant management (400 acs), culvert upgrades (3 ea), fish passage/culvert replacement (3 ea), road
decommissioning (15 miles), road maintenance (35 miles), commercial timber harvest (2,100 acres or 10 mmbf,
including biomass removal), roadside salvage/road maintenance (1000 miles or 2 mmbf), biomass utilization
(12,500 green tons), pre-commercial thinning (250 acs), reforestation (150 acs), trail reconstruction (6 mi),
instream fisheries improvement (1 mi), trail bridge replacement ( 1 ea), riparian area improvements (12 acs),
allotment weed treatments (150 acs), and trail maintenance (80 miles). These projects are consistent with the
original proposal and no deviations are planned at this time, with the exception of the commercial harvest
12
CFLRP Annual Report 2012
helicopter project. We are moving it back to FY2015 and making it a larger sale, in hopes that the market will
continue to recover making it more feasible.
In the winter of this year, we plan to meet with KVRI for their review of these proposed projects. NEPA will then
be conducted for these proposed projects.. Working in collaboration with KVRI, the District conducted field work
on two major vegetation projects and one ecosystem burn project, as described above. This will allow
implementation of the many components of the projects for 2013 and 2014.
13. Describe and provide narrative justification if planned FY 2013/14 accomplishments and/or funding differs from
CFLRP project work plan (no more than 1 page):
After reviewing the Grizzly Bear Access Amendment and the number of miles of road that would need to be
decommissioned to meet the standards contained therein, we have discovered that the original number submitted in the
proposal was an overestimation. Upon further review, 25 miles of road decommissioning for the course of the project
would more clearly reflect what is needed for grizzly bear standards, as well as any additional aquatic restoration needs. It
is expected that 3 miles per year could be accomplished.
13